ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Large language model-based uncertainty-adjusted label extraction for artificial intelligence model development in upper extremity radiography.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate GPT-4o's zero-shot ability to extract structured diagnostic labels (with uncertainty) from free-text radiology reports and to test how these labels affect multi-label image classification of musculoskeletal radiographs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included radiography series of the clavicle (n = 1170), elbow (n = 3755), and thumb (n = 1978). After anonymization, GPT-4o filled out structured templates by indicating imaging findings as present ("true"), absent ("false"), or "uncertain." To assess the impact of label uncertainty, "uncertain" labels of the training and validation sets were automatically reassigned to "true" (inclusive) or "false" (exclusive). Label-image pairs were used for multi-label classification using the ResNet50 architecture. Label extraction accuracy was manually verified on internal (clavicle: n = 233, elbow: n = 745, thumb: n = 393) and external test sets (n = 300 for each). Performance was assessed using macro-averaged receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC), precision, recall curves, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. AUCs were compared with the DeLong test.
resultsAutomatic extraction was correct in 98.6% (60,618 of 61,488) of labels in the test sets. Across anatomic regions, label-based model training yielded competitive performance measured by macro-averaged AUC values for inclusive (e.g., elbow: AUC = 0.80 (range, 0.62-0.87)) and exclusive models (elbow: AUC = 0.80 (range, 0.61-0.88)). Models generalized well on external datasets (elbow (inclusive): AUC = 0.79 (range, 0.61-0.87); elbow (exclusive): AUC = 0.79 (range, 0.63-0.89)). No significant differences were observed across labeling strategies or datasets (p ≥ 0.15).
conclusionGPT-4o extracted labels from radiologic reports to train competitive multi-label classification models with high accuracy. Detected uncertainty in the radiologic reports did not influence the performance of these models. KEY POINTS: Question Can GPT-4o automatically extract high-accuracy, uncertainty-aware diagnostic labels from routine radiologic reports of the clavicle, elbow, and thumb for use in training multi-label image classifiers? Findings GPT-4o extracted labels with > 98% accuracy, and multi-label classifiers for clavicle, elbow, and thumb radiographs performed consistently regardless of how uncertainty was handled. Clinical relevance Automated GPT-4o-based labeling of routine clavicle, elbow, and thumb radiologic reports enables the rapid conversion of radiologic reports into structured multi-label training datasets, supporting scalable development of dedicated image classification models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.